I think therefore that one always acts according to his or her own will. Whether his or her own will is free or not, is a totally different question. It is free in the sense that it can't conquer itself. It is not free in the sense that it will always seek out actions that provide the person with the best benefits.

I think the ensuing argumenting after where I left off reading the posts (which had to do with the drinking example), is hinging very much on an equivocation. The equivocation is that free will is a concept denied by determinism, and supported by Christian dogma; at the same time that will is a concept that may be free or not to make choices in action.

That's exactly why she insisted men had to give up their sovereignty. She insisted Heidi gave up his sovereignty. Only then he could be truly free. By giving her her freedom. Which he probably didn't, being a strict nazi, who generally wants the wife in the kitchen and give birth to new Arians to sustain the Reich and hunt for Lebensraum.

Are you free to act against your own will? — Banno

I am sorry, but I have to quote again my best friend, teacher and master: Paul A. S. He came to me one day, and asked, "Peter (not my real name) do you consider yourself your own intellectual superior?"

The absurdity was a vehicle to convey to me he thought I was a puffed-up, self-important, egomaniac, who had given himself to intellectual onanism.

And he was right.

But Paul's absurd humour also can be applied to the question of will.

"Is your will stronger than your will?" Is your will capable of conquering itself? Is your will free to overcome itself?

I hope to have conveyed the absurdity of Randt's propositional question.

--------------------------------------

You can't act against your own will if all your actions are a product (or are governed) by your will.

So the question becomes not freedom of will (we can safely dispense with that superfluous and aggrandizing qualifier), but whether you always act according to your will or not.

I am on the view that yes, you always act what you will. And I maintain that that functionality has nothing to do with freedom. It is not a question of what you are free to do or not free to do. It completely severs the "freedom" component of the functionality.

This freedom which we take for granted in all political theory and which even those who praise tyranny must still take into account is the very opposite of "inner freedom," the inward space into which men may escape from external coercion and feel free.

This doesn't address anything, it merely takes the concept of freedom and describes it as slavery. The ability of the individual, who may be a slave to his/her biology, to act in accordance with his nature in complete freedom from human to human coercion, is what freedom is.

Every attempt to derive the concept of freedom from experiences in the political realm sounds strange and startling because all our theories in these matters are dominated by the notion that freedom is an attribute of will and thought much rather than of action.

No, it isn't. Again, the author is attempting to completely redefine freedom and hoping you do not notice, luckily the nonsense doesn't work on me. Our concept of political freedom is that of the human to act without threat of force to compel action not designated by the natural will of that individual. Internal freedom from biological compulsion requires the freedom described above, if at all it is ever a possibility, which is certainly up for discussion. What the author is doing to your brain in these passages is creating a false dichotomy, one or the other, its manipulation in the form of fallacious arguments, casuistry.

Whatever occurs in this space of appearances is political by definition, even when it is not a direct product of action. What remains outside it, such as
the great feats of barbarian empires, may be impressive and noteworthy, but it is not political, strictly speaking.

Let me remind you what is the actual raison d'etre is for government, which is to say politics, that being the institutionalized protection against those who would seek to violate your freedom to act as you see fit. It doesn't matter if it is political by definition, what matters is the philosophy guiding the body-politic. As far as individuals are concerned, humans already operate under the pretenses of freedom, they only do not do so when the threat of force is present and pointed in their direction. Freedom is the natural human state, states are the unatural human excogitation. In other words freedom presupposes the necessity of the state, because historically violations of freedome have pressuposed the emergence of states as means to ensure freedom and property on the part of the criminals of the world and to whom they delegate freedom and property in pursuit of further gain.

And so, Mr. Travers, the need for a "guaranteed public realm" is because the appearance and maintenance of "boundaries between individuals" requires more than willing it to be so: — Paine

A requirement for humans to live as they naturally are, is not an indication that they would not do so without such a guaranteed public realm. It is more an indication of the ineradicable psychopathology attendant upon those who regard other humans as not having individual boundaries between one another. You are 100% of the time operating as if there is a separation between you and others, as is our natural inclination. Just as Kings, Emporers, and Tyrants act regarding themselves and others. The existence of governments that ensure that freedom from coercion does not presuppose freedom from force's existence. We know this because we have chosen to erect states to ensure it, meaning our freedom was valued as a presupposition of state existence.

Nota bene: you don't get to use the word "Empires" when describing things that are non-political.

Because of the philosophic shift from action to will-power, from freedom as a state of being
manifest in action to the liberum arbitrium, the ideal of freedom ceased to be virtuosity in the sense we mentioned before and became sovereignty, the ideal of a free will, independent from other and eventually prevailing against them. The philosophic ancestry of our current political notion of freedom is still quite manifest in eighteenth-century political writers, when, for instance, Thomas
Paine insisted that "to be free it is sufficient [for man] that he wills
it," a word which Lafayette applied to the nation-state: "Pour qu'une nation salt libre, il suffit qu'elle veuille Vetre"

The author appears to be agreeing with me here. But, she does so by conceding that she has changed the definition of freedom as a result of commentary on the subject by a number of influential people. Sovereignty is the virtue, and it is one that can easily be concluded given almost every logical framework imaginable. As it would appear that Thomas Paine still understood by the time he wrote that remark. In which case, I'm left to wonder: what exactly is the point of this work? Was it to describe how freedom isn't a thing? Or, that freedom used to be something else? Maybe I'll read it to find out.

lol, this thread title is literally: Freedom is slavery. — Garrett Travers

Condemned to it, yes? It seems to me that to ask what freedom is without some qualification is to step into a trap. Freedom itself isn't anything. (Disagree? What is it, then, and how do you know?) More to the point is what do we, collectively we in some sense, say that freedom is in this year of 2022? And can we get any consensus on that? For clearly we cannot do what we want, and it's unlikely there was ever for most people a time when they could.

For present purpose, I'll offer that having freedom is having access to realizing material possibility. And for that, adequate truth. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights seems a pretty good start and approximation.

Anyone taking the question seriously might care to consider just what it takes on the part of an astonishing number of people working in concert to make the world work so that most of us can just run our errands large and small.

Condemned to it, yes? It seems to me that to ask what freedom is without some qualification is to step into a trap. Freedom itself isn't anything. (Disagree? What is it, then, and how do you know?) More to the point is what do we, collectively we in some sense, say that freedom is in this year of 2022? And can we get any consensus on that? For clearly we cannot do what we want, and it's unlikely there was ever for most people a time when they could. — tim wood

Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nation, independent of interpersonal coercion. I know what freedom is because one, words have definitions, and two, I experience independence from interpersonal coercion and the biological imperative known as independent action. There is no we. There are only individuals and you, as an individual, either understand freedom, or regard others as fit for your influence, coercive or otherwise. In which case you would still be valuing your own freedom, as all do at all times, but more so the idea that your freedom supersedes another's freedom with them being the instrument of your desires. Yes, we can most certainly do what we want within the parameters of the above listed definition. Other humans are not a factor in the equation that is your individual freedom.

For present purpose, I'll offer that having freedom is having access to realizing material possibility. And for that, adequate truth. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable rights seems a pretty good start and approximation — tim wood

That cannot be your definition, as there are many things encompassed by "material possibility" that would require you to violate the freedom of another to obtain. Yes, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness can only be achieved through the recognition of individual sovereignty, which is to say freedom from coercion. Coercion is antithetical life, liberty, and individual pursuit. Coercion is that which is required to hinder all of those when not voluntarily renounced on the part of any and all individuals.

Anyone taking the question seriously might care to consider just what it takes on the part of an astonishing number of people working in concert to make the world work so that most of us can just run our errands large and small. — tim wood

Individual pursuit of self-maximization, and thereby recognition of individual sovereignty, to act according to one's desires, resulting in a market exchange of critical services that are produced for individual gain and mutual benefit that all of us value and use as either a by-product of production, or a direct result of production. Freedom personified.

This doesn't address anything, it merely takes the concept of freedom and describes it as slavery. — Garrett Travers

The passage addresses freedom of the individual, as it has been expressed by Epictetus, for example, as an experience that is possible despite whatever condition or station of life one might find oneself in the world. Her intent to separate that meaning from the realm of political action is not dissimilar from your purpose in saying:

" As far as "free will," there is no such thing. There is simply limited agency or will. My body tells me I am hungry, I can choose between foods. I have homework to do tonight, I can choose which class to tackle first."

Arendt does not have to agree or disagree with your formulation to make the distinction in how the idea is expressed for different purposes.

It doesn't matter if it is political by definition, what matters is the philosophy guiding the body-politic — Garrett Travers

To speak of a just "body-politic" is to propose a "guaranteed public realm." Doubting that such a realm was given to us as a state of nature in the spirit of Rousseau is not the equivalent to saying that "humans as not having individual boundaries between one another." You are the one conflating the two ideas, Arendt distinguishes them from each other;

Maybe I'll read it to find out. — Garrett Travers

So, you just spent hundreds of words critiquing something you have not read. In the future, please indicate that is your condition before making a comment upon something.

Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nation, — Garrett Travers

Make sense of this, please.

I know what freedom is because one, words have definitions, and two, I experience independence from interpersonal coercion and the biological imperative known as independent action. — Garrett Travers

And this too.

There is no we. — Garrett Travers

I suppose. But name even a couple of actions you do that do not involve - require in some way - anyone else.

to act according to one's desires, — Garrett Travers

Please make clear how this is freedom.

I confess I don't understand why she claims that freedom is identified with sovereignty to begin with, except to the extent she does so for rhetorical purposes. It's not clear to me that my freedom to act necessarily constitutes an exercise of sovereignty over anyone. She refers to Epictetus, but I would say that he clearly maintains that we need not be subject to the sovereignty of others, and that we shouldn't exercise sovereignty over them. She may be distinguishing that view from the more modern view she feels has developed. It seems to me, however, that sovereignty is for her a bete noir and she juxtaposes it with freedom to persuade others to think of it as such as well.

The passage addresses freedom of the individual, as it has been expressed by Epictetus, for example, as an experience that is possible despite whatever condition or station of life one might find oneself in the world. Her intent to separate that meaning from the realm of political action is not dissimilar from your purpose in saying: — Paine

I think it is. I'm not separating percieved aspects of will. I'm say free will doesn't exist, we know this because 99% of our cognition is subconscious. But, we certainly have limited agency. That's not the same as dividing societal aspects of liberty from individual liberty and claiming one is favorable between them. They are the same thing at the core of their motivation: independence from coercion.

To speak of a just "body-politic" is to propose a "guaranteed public realm." Doubting that such a realm was given to us as a state of nature in the spirit of Rousseau is not the equivalent to saying that "humans as not having individual boundaries between one another." You are the one conflating the two ideas, Arendt distinguishes them from each other; — Paine

I never said anything about a just body-politic, I said the philosophy is what guides such a societal direction as providing a guaranteed public domain, as an extension of the idea of independence from coercion, for someone to later critique as separate things. They aren't separate things. The sovereignty of the state is both an extension, and dependent on the sovereignty of its individuals. A state is itself a declaration of the exact same assertion: the right to exist independent of unwelcomed influence and of self autonomy. Yes, I am conflating them, they are the same phenomenon, one writ small, the other writ large.

So, you just spent hundreds of words critiquing something you have not read. In the future, please indicate that is your condition before making a comment upon something. — Paine

I'd rather just see if the arguments can withstand scrutiny and if I find something that gives me pause, I'll go read it. So far, the arguments being made in the above listed passages do little more than strengthen the concept of sovereignty as the core principle guiding both individual, as well as societal liberty.

Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nation,
— Garrett Travers
Make sense of this, please. — tim wood

My bad it must have auto corrected, here's what I meant to write: Freedom is individual human action, as is demanded by your nature, independent of interpersonal coercion.

I know what freedom is because one, words have definitions, and two, I experience independence from interpersonal coercion and the biological imperative known as independent action. — Garrett Travers

Freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

It can be experience on a regularly daily basis, it is self explanatory as far as your day to day experience is concerned. You are experiencing it right now reading this, just as I am typing it. In fact, your biological nature dictates that you act. Freedom is doing so without the coercion necessary to stop you. And the same applies to every other human.

I suppose. But name even a couple of actions you do that do not involve - require in some way - anyone else. — tim wood

Walking, sleeping, thinking, speaking. The concept of freedom, as I have laid out covers interpersonal interection. When it comes to relying on, or being involved with other people, respecting eachothers sovereign boundaries implies voluntary interaction. Meaning, there still is no we, there are only one or more individuals in voluntary agreement of co-operation.

Please make clear how this is freedom. — tim wood

Because to stop me from acting according to my desires, which I will do as an imperative of my biological being - as will you and everyone else, mind you - you would have to violate my sovereign boundaries. Again freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

The author of the article might had fared better with Isaiah Berlin's distinction, which seems to me less muddled. Berlin's versions of liberty, positive and negative, are similar to Arendt's, but a little easier to grasp.

Negative liberty is the kind of freedom found in the phrase “freedom convoy”, as evidenced by their opposition to certain mandates.

This is obviously in tune with the point I've found myself obliged to make a few times recently, that ethics begins not when one considers oneself, but when one considers others. — Banno

Or more specifically - other's goals. Ethics is the relationship between one person's goals and another person's goals in whether they come into conflict or agree.

Anyway, I'm linking to the Arendt essay in order to ask again her question: What is freedom?, and to give a space for considering her essay. Given the "freedom convoy" that trickled into Canberra yesterday, and the somewhat more effective equivalent in Canada, It seems appropriate. — Banno

Freedom is partly choice. The more choices the more freedom.

The other part is the feeling that your choices are evenly balanced, as if there were more of an equal (50/50) chance of making one choice over the other.

Coercion limits freedom because it creates an in-balance in the chances of choosing between doing on thing or another. I may still do what someone is threatening me no to do, but their threats puts pressure on me to make another choice that I wouldn't have necessarily had.

Walking, sleeping, thinking, speaking. — Garrett Travers

Walking on what, where, why? Sleeping on what, where? Thinking and speaking? Maybe after you've given it all a lot of thought - but how do you know?

Again freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. — Garrett Travers

Really? To go where you want, say what you want, do what you want? Without hindrance or restraint? Where is this magic land? And of course you've already accounted for your lack of freedom in being bound by your wants, yes?

The point is that you're giving a definition of sorts for license and licentiousness, apparently not only not recognizing that they're different from freedom, but not even being aware of a difference. If you think wanting "macht frei", ask any addict if he or she is free.

respecting each other's sovereign boundaries implies voluntary interaction. — Garrett Travers

It may imply it, but it doesn't mean it. I'd go so far as to say that wrt other's boundaries, we're all subject to a good deal of hindrance and restraint - wouldn't you?

Walking on what, where, why? Sleeping on what, where? Thinking and speaking? Maybe after you've given it all a lot of thought - but how do you know? — tim wood

On the ground, anywhere I choose, and because I'm the one doing it. Again, acting in voluntary co-operation with other people is still an exercise in individual freedom.

Really? To go where you want, say what you want, do what you want? Without hindrance or restraint? Where is this magic land? And of course you've already accounted for your lack of freedom in being bound by your wants, yes? — tim wood

That would be America, as the last best hope of this. I can go where I want, say and do what I want, when it doesn't violate the rights of others to also do so. Now, that doesn't mean the U.S. law hasn't overstepped its boundaries, it has, but freedom as a concept does not change simply because a person, or group of persons begin to violate it. They are simply violating it. And yes, biology has its own imperatives.

It may imply it, but it doesn't mean it. I'd go so far as to say that wrt other's boundaries, we're all subject to a good deal of hindrance and restraint - wouldn't you? — tim wood

Natural hindrences aren't what the topic is. Hindrences as imposed upon you by other people, even though your were imposing no such hindrences upon them, that is the issue. Yes, to actively respect sovereign boundaries is to be free, and let be free.

I prefer the term, "goals" rather than "will". What is a will and what makes it free or not?

Freedom is the idea that you can achieve your goals using an equal balance of choices, or the idea that you have at your disposal all possible options with many having an equal chance to be chosen (tried (learning)).

That would be America, as the last best hope of this. I can go where I want, say and do what I want, when it doesn't violate the rights of others to also do so. — Garrett Travers

We're considering two - at least two - different ideas of freedom. Yours, if you're a slave to ice cream, at least, presumably, you're free to choose vanilla or chocolate. And just this a pseudo-freedom built on a foundation of a kind of slavery or at least subservience. But you're not free until you can acknowledge your craving for ice cream and let it go; i.e., be free of it.

As to American freedom, maybe in the antebellum West as a mountain man, but those constrained in their own way at least as much as modern man. Pure nature not allowing much in the way of freedom. And in America today it is difficult to think of anywhere you can be both free and not potentially be violating the rights of others. Except perhaps in thinking, but that also subject to hindrances and restraints, and them often enough not even recognized as such.

If you want to argue the occasional practical freedom of vanilla v. chocolate, no argument here. But instead I argue that's just no freedom at all.

Sovereignty: Supreme power or authority

Dominion, supremacy, authority, tyranny, power, hegemony, domination...

Do I need to write more? Hannah Arendt was wrong. Only if a man is sovereign, he can be free. Only then can he send constraining forces home.

We're considering two - at least two - different ideas of freedom. Yours, if you're a slave to ice cream, at least, presumably, you're free to choose vanilla or chocolate. And just this a pseudo-freedom built on a foundation of a kind of slavery or at least subservience. But you're not free until you can acknowledge your craving for ice cream and let it go; i.e., be free of it. — tim wood

No, that's not the case because even those impulses are self-generated, either by one's nature, or one's considerations. One cannot be a slave to themselves, to be a slave to one's self is to be free.

As to American freedom, maybe in the antebellum West as a mountain man, but those constrained in their own way at least as much as modern man. Pure nature not allowing much in the way of freedom. And in America today it is difficult to think of anywhere you can be both free and not potentially be violating the rights of others. Except perhaps in thinking, but that also subject to hindrances and restraints, and them often enough not even recognized as such. — tim wood

Sure nature of course has its restrictions. But, as Tolstoy postulated in War & Peace, it is in fact the natural constraints of reality that create the domain in which human action can even be achieved. You might consider trying to walk without gravity. Nonetheless, natural strictures have no bearing on the concept of freedom as independence from interpersonal coercion. Nobody is going to argue against the idea of natural restraints, none reasonable anyway. I'm also not going to negate the innate psychopathology intrinsic to man that seems to be driving humans to violate rights, even though that's the last thing they would wish done to themselves. However, the fact that most men throughout history have lived in self-contradiction, does not imply that freedom in the sense I have been describing isn't real, or achievable. I live free every day, you are exemplifying freedom by engaging with me here on this forum. It is very real.

If you want to argue the occasional practical freedom of vanilla v. chocolate, no argument here. But instead I argue that's just no freedom at all. — tim wood

It must needs be freedom if your desires are being met without coercion from others to stop, or hinder you. That may not be the kind of freedom you like, emotionally. But, it is quite literally encompassed in the definition of freedom.

It's not clear to me that my freedom to act necessarily constitutes an exercise of sovereignty over anyone — Ciceronianus

It constitutes an act of sovereignty over one's own self and the exercise of the sole right to the action therein contained. Human action is sovereignty, and it requires force to impede, or compel.

She may be distinguishing that view from the more modern view she feels has developed. — Ciceronianus

That is precisely what she's doing, and hoping you follow along and accept her premises, which I do not.

It seems to me, however, that sovereignty is for her a bete noir and she juxtaposes it with freedom to persuade others to think of it as such as well. — Ciceronianus

Exactly the suspicion I fell under. She's trying to have you renounce your individual sovereignty, as is meant when discussing the topic of freedom, to promote the sovereignty of the state, so as to do as it pleases, because after all, you have the state to thank for your freedom. As if it wasn't sovereign individuals that erected the state and enshrined as its basic code governance the sovereignty of the individual and the free expression thereof that didn't violate the rights of others. She's hoping that you let the state do what the bill of rights forbids it do, thereby undoing its entire purpose, and only legitimate justification for existence.

Folks, it is clear that Arendt agrees with you that one cannot act against one's will.

I offer 's disagreeing with her, and you, as further evidence that she is right.

I chose not to. — Hanover

Are you still upset about Eichmann?

It constitutes an act of sovereignty over one's own self and the exercise of the sole right to the action therein contained. Human action is sovereignty, and it requires force to impede, or compel. — Garrett Travers

I have a fondness for Stoicism, and think there are things which are in our control in significant respects. In these dark times, I think of Montaigne's saying that "Not being able to govern events, I govern myself." But I think when we speak of governing ourselves or having sovereignty over ourselves, we should understand that we speak metaphorically. I think Arndt isn't doing that when she refers to individual sovereignty, and in this fashion makes individual sovereignty appear equivalent to the imposition of authority over others, and as objectionable.

Paragraphs are wonderful things.

So, no, — Garrett Travers

and yet,

interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people. — Garrett Travers

I'm not sure with what you are disagreeing.

I have homework to do tonight, — Garrett Travers

Ah. Don't let me detain you.

in this fashion makes individual sovereignty appear equivalent to the imposition of authority over others, and as objectionable. — Ciceronianus

I would say that is probably influenced by a dualistic approach at seeing oneself and one's own actions. The pre-frontal cortex alloe, in conjunction with all other structures of the brain, the capacity for both perception, as well as pattern recognition. This creates the illusion that we exist separately from the body that provides this gift, as over time we percieve the patterns we produce in ourselves. This is not what is happening. Each individual is the sum total of all its constituent elements, including the actions and thoughts produced by the body, and perceived by the pattern recognizing mechanism of it's own brain. We ARE slaves to our selves. To be permitted to be such a slave by your fellow human without interference is to be free.

I'm not sure with what you are disagreeing. — Banno

Banno: Says things.

I would say that is probably influenced by a dualistic approach at seeing oneself and one's own actions. — Garrett Travers

Dualism has plagued us for centuries. I doubt there has been any greater source of philosophical futility.

I'll be a bit more clear and let's see if we can get an argument from you. I'm arguing that this:

“…it becomes as impossible to conceive of freedom or its opposite as it is to realize the notion of a square circle.”

Is demonstrably bullshit. And that restrictions like what are the topic of discussion in the article apropos covid are clear and present violations of sovereignty and freedom of the individual to act as one sees fit. And furthermore, that the argument that lockdown measures are somehow necessary to ensure saftey is also false, thereby rendering any fabricated concept of freedom, like what the article would have you consider, utterly without justification. To review the inefficacy of liberty violations that we saw for covid, here's a recent meta-analysis on the relavent data.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Freedom is sovereignty of the individual. It is not imposing force on people to create the illusion of safety, it is not freedom to access property and serivices provided by another's labor, which would violate sovereignty, it isn't freedom from one's own impulses, as if that were a thing at all.

Man, I couldn't agree more.

I offer ↪Metaphysician Undercover's disagreeing with her, and you, as further evidence that she is right. — Banno

The usual, ad hominem instead of considering the principles presented, a decidedly uneducated practice.

Thanks. I don't see that @Garrett Travers is addressing the article - he's not the only one. A year or so ago one could start a thread around an article with some expectation of having it's content addressed. It seems no longer to be the case.

I blame YouTube.

Much of the confusion here seems to be mistaking "Are you free to act against your own will?" for "Are you free to act against your own desire?". This is 's error, along with and .

Arendt's point here is that "it must appear strange indeed that the faculty of the will whose essential activity consists in dictate and command should be the harborer of freedom." In doing so she shows the tyranny of following one's will, and hence that will is contrary to freedom. The will, therefore, cannot be the source of freedom.

That, at least, is how I see the argument in the first few pages as proceeding. It's not a style of argument that I am keen on, owing more to the European style of philosophising than to the analytic style with which I am familiar. But it rings true with those arguments for the inadequacy of the notion of free will with which we will all be familiar. It adds to a long list of conceptual concerns that might lead one to suppose free will unreliable.